Next On The Agenda: The White House

November 14, 1994|By Mickey Edwards.

Now that it's over, what did we learn? We learned, for one thing, that America's political system works. Americans went to the polls Nov. 8 and reshaped their governments, in the states and in Washington, D.C. They reordered the nation's priorities and took the law into their own hands.

Powerful incumbents were defeated. Political dominance shifted from one party to another and from one ideology to another. And all of this was done without term limits and without federal financing of elections.

Voters gave control of the Congress to a party that had not held majorities in the House and Senate for 40 years.

Spin doctors of the Left will continue to argue that the system is broke, but only by radical change can we create the kind of politics they prefer.

"Sure there were a lot of changes," one critic complained after last week's elections, "but how many poor people were elected?" Money does play a major role in politics because so many of a candidate's tools, from television advertising to direct mail, cost so much.

Despite the occasional Huffingtons, Kennedys, Romneys and Kohls, most politicians don't get elected by spending their own money; they get elected by articulating positions and receiving the support of people who agree with them. Obviously, a candidate without personal wealth will have to work harder-knock on more doors, visit more factory gates-than the fat cats with deep pockets.

A second favorite spin following last week's string of Republican victories was that "voters didn't understand." If only the voters had been smart enough to know what was really important to them, they would have kept the Democrats in charge, the reasoning went. It was this kind of elitism that voters rejected state after state.

The fact is, the American electorate is neither stupid nor confused. It may not know exactly how to get what it wants, but it does know what it wants.

Which brings us to the second lesson of this year's elections: Americans believe government has gotten too big, too intrusive, too expensive. This does not mean, as liberals fear, that they want to starve the poor, the elderly and the homeless. Americans are a compassionate people. It does mean, however, that voters are ready for some adjustments in how we go about the business of dealing with the nation's problems. It means voters want a system that is less costly, that does more to protect citizens against crime, that considers alternatives to expensive social programs that haven't produced the results their advocates had projected.

It's no accident that more liberals lost than conservatives. After 40 years of Democratic domination (even when Republicans were in the White House, Democrats controlled Congress and usually controlled the majority of state governments), the people wanted something different.

There will not be automatic acceptance of Republican proposals. If the new Republican majority keeps its promise to seek a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, it will be under some obligation to operate within the parameters of a balanced budget while the amendment is being considered. Since there are only two ways to get there (raise taxes or cut programs), whatever the Republicans propose is certain to generate strong opposition.

But by choosing to transfer power away from the Democrats, who have preferred higher taxes to reduced spending, voters have indicated that they are ready for a more conservative approach to government: fewer programs, less cost. If Republicans go too far, the voters will jerk them back to reality two years from now. But if the President decides to act like Harry Truman, putting forth a liberal agenda and assailing Republicans if they reject it, he will once again make the mistake of misreading the electorate. If that happens, Republicans will soon add the White House, too, to their growing collection of political trophies.